This study investigates how geographic isolation interacts with declining environmental and economic conditions in Kiribati, an island nation wherein which limited access to financial resources amidst degrading environmental conditions potentially constrain capital-intensive, long distance migration. We examine whether geographic isolation modifies the tenets of two dominant environmental migration theses. The environmental scarcity thesis suggests that environmental degradation prompts migration by urging households to reallocate labor to new environments. In contrast, the environmental capital thesis asserts that declining natural resource availability restricts capital necessary for migration. Results show that the commonly applied environmental scarcity thesis is less valid and the environmental capital thesis is more relevant in geographically isolated places. Findings indicate that geographic isolation is an important dimension along which migration differences emerge. As overall environmental and economic conditions worsen, likelihoods of out-migration from less remote islands increase whereas likelihoods of out-migration from more isolated islands decrease.
Keywords: Kiribati; climate change; environmental migration; geographic isolation.